Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolution issues


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. No consensus to delete, and no clear decision on a target, so that is left as a separate editorial discussion outside AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution issues

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am completing this AFD nom for User:Nowimnthing, who added the tag approximately half an hour ago, but hadn't yet followed up here. Nowimnthing wrote "almost the textbook example of POV forking" on the article talk page. (I'm still neutral, but will come back with an opinion on deleting once I've read more.) My opinion below. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - I have been BOLD and moved the article to a new title Current research in evolutionary biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like it is sourced enough, and should be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikivanda199 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep at new title, should be the main article expanding on the material summarised at History_of_evolutionary_thought. This needs a rewrite focusing on the proposed hypotheses and the data that they explain. Presently it is a list of data (for some reason called "issues") and a list of hypotheses, with little connection made between the two. A very poor article, but one that does now deal with a clearly-defined and notable topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also be happy with Merge to Modern evolutionary synthesis. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. I agree with Tim - it's a mess right now, but it does make sense to have an article at Current research in evolutionary biology, even though the current one is not expecially good.  I also agree that "Evolution issues" was a terrible title.  Dawn Bard (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The new title is much better than the "issues" one, and does away with any suggestion of this being a POV fork - which it very much isn't. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete . reading up on the discussion at Talk:Evolution I can see where editors in good faith may have started this article, but I think the subject is better served incorporated into the Evolution article. Nowimnthing (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Much of this material is already touched on in the evolution article and also in history of evolutionary thought, this article would expand on those summaries, as per Summary style. But if you think this material should be merged, which of these two articles would you merge it into? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reading your new intro, I kind of lean toward Modern evolutionary synthesis. It seems the critiques do revolve mostly around that. I will defer to your judgment since you are much more active on the evolution page than I am. If it does stay as an independent page I would like some kind of sentence stating that these critiques in no way call into question the fact of evolution just some of our understanding of exactly how it works.Nowimnthing (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, these are all questions about which mechanisms apply and which are most important, but I have to say that even the current version of the article does a very poor job of making this point clear. On the other hand, this is a notable topic, even if the current text fails to explain that topic to its readers. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Modern evolutionary synthesis. Wikipedia should have lots of articles on different aspects of evolution, and it does. There's natural selection, speciation, evidence of common descent, evolutionary history of life, and history of evolutionary thought.  There's also evolution as theory and fact, objections to evolution, and creation-evolution controversy to present alternative views.  I could go on and on. In fact, I think I will.  We have evolutionary developmental biology, human evolution, genetics and the origin of species, inception of Darwin's theory, reaction to Darwin's theory, non-Darwinian evolution, and even evolutionary ethics. This huge morass of articles for one subject is confusing and makes it harder for the end-user to navigate through and find the content they seek.  (It's okay for experienced Wikipedians who can use categories proficiently, but I'm talking about end-users rather than editors.  Few end-users are even aware of categories.) More articles on the same subject also allows POV forking (accidental or deliberate) and makes it hard to keep track. I'm convinced this content belongs within the articles we already have rather than in yet another new article.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As a merge target Modern_evolutionary_synthesis is the correct place, but this article will have to be trimmed dramatically to fit into the Modern evolutionary synthesis article. That could be good for it, however, since much of the current content is unreferenced and very poorly written. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a trim would do it a great deal of good. :)  I'll help with the merge if that's the eventual outcome.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Given the title and direction added by Tim Vickers, I support keeping this article. The merge proposal by S Marshall (and the given reasons) is sound, but each related article is full of good information, and adding more would not be desirable. There are many people (such as myself) who are interested in the topic, but don't work in the field. Provided the article sticks to its current title (and doesn't wander into POV discussion like but what about irreducible complexity?) general discussion of current research trends would be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace with a telephone switchboard page. Frankly, I do not regard this as "Current research ine volutionary biology", more like a dozen poorly-understood ideas thrown onto the screen and inadequately described. The present content ranges from OK-ish to incomplete, unclear, quite wrong, and POV. The very idea that Altruism, which has tested the best minds we have for half a century, can be adequately summarised in a paragraph, is quite ridiculous: and that's one of the best sections... As for merging out, it would not help the relatively well-written articles to have to deal with this lot. Better by far to use the article as a swithboard to direct newcomers to the dozen or so best WP overview articles on evolution (many mentioned above), plus articles on specific technical concepts. No substantive content: each section would simply tell readers what they can expect to find if they look up a particular article. The basic justification would be to make sure a keen student would not miss anything relevant. All articles listed on the telephone page would be of B standard or above, and of at least mid importance. That is doable; mending this page, if possible at all, would divert scarce expertise from other, more fruitful, activities. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY or merge per WP:BEFORE. I could find a cite or two. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on your comment a bit please, I find it difficult to understand. In particular, what merge target would you prefer? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "I kind of lean toward Modern evolutionary synthesis" per Nowimnthing. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Modern evolutionary synthesis. changed my mind, Tim convinces me this may work with some heavy editing. Nowimnthing (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think I understand the difficulty here. The question is: Does "modern synthesis" (AKA "neo-Darwinism") refer to a specific set of beliefs regarding the evolutionary process expressed in the 1942 book by the same name and typical of 1940s thinking on the subject? Does "modern synthesis" specifically exclude later concepts such as group selection and evolvability? OR does "modern synthesis" expand with new discoveries and really mean "current thinking" or similar, including at least to some extent group selection, evolvability, and gene-oriented thories. The latter view is what is conveyed by the evolution article.  However, there are vocal scientific factions that currently believe in the former view (possibly including some of those reading this and possibly the authors of the modern synthesis article). That is why I suggested a separate article. As I understand it, the largest currently extant "issue" (please excuse the expression) has to do with the definition of fitness. Does fitness only refer to the ability of individual organisms to survive or reproduce or can it also include benefits to evolvability, groups, or genes?  This in turn is driven by one's thinking regarding propagation of mutational changes. Post-1950 discoveries in genetics can be interpreted as dramatically complicating propagation.  Some such (ref 45, 46) are mentioned in evolution. The material I submitted was intended to catalog in summary the observations that conflict with the individual fitness view and briefly describe the above-mentioned adjustments to 1950 thinking that have been developed in an effort to solve these problems.  Igor233 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion, if you wish to write about the unit of selection, there is already an article on that topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From my college experience, Modern evolutionary synthesis is very much the current state of evolutionary research and a combination of a variety of different theories. It may of had its start in the 1940's but it has progressed far from that humble beginning. I think you would have a hard time making a case that the most common usage is the early view. Nowimnthing (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.